HC Deb 22 July 1991 vol 195 cc735-6
1. Mr. Squire

To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the annual cost of income-related benefits paid to lone parents.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Michael Jack)

In 1990–91 the expenditure was approximately £3.4 billion.

Mr. Squire

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Will he confirm that less than one third of lone parents currently receive regular maintenance? If that is the case, both in equity and—given his answers—in the interests of the taxpayer, must not there be a greater effort to ensure that absent parents contribute and face their financial responsibilities?

Mr. Jack

In general terms, I can confirm that figure. I also confirm that only 23 per cent. of people on income support have their maintenance orders honoured. As my hon. Friend says, because absent parents do not honour their obligations to their children, the taxpayer has to make up the deficit, to the tune of £400 million a year. The Child Support Bill now in another place will deal with that problem.

Mr. McAllion

What is the annual cost of the tax cuts and other advantages that the Government have given to the rich? Does the Minister agree that the rich have received far more from the Government than ever the poor have, which has widened the gap between rich and poor during the lifetime of the Government? Does not that reflect the reality that this is a Government of the rich, for the rich, by the rich?

Mr. Jack

The hon. Gentleman will not tempt me into areas more appropriately covered by my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Treasury. However, to answer his question and to focus again on the subject of lone parents, in 1981–82—these figures are in 1990–91 prices—we spent £2.169 billion on benefits for lone parents, while by 1990–91 that sum had risen to £4.476 billion. That shows how high a priority we give to some of the people to whom the hon. Gentleman alluded.

Mr. Conway

Does my hon. Friend agree that this has nothing to do with a battle between rich and poor but is about the fact that families on lower incomes who fall within the income tax net have to subsidise fathers who abscond and leave their wives and children so that the state has to pick up the burden?

Mr. Jack

My hon. Friend is entirely correct that people on low incomes make their contribution to the £400 million to which I referred. The Child Support Agency, to whose establishment the House agree last Thursday, will be able to attend to that matter.

Mr. Allen

For many lone parents the long-term answer has to be a job, with adequate child care. Does the Minister accept that he offers a choice between keeping women out of work on low benefits and subsidising low-paying employers through family credit? Why do he and the Government continue to refuse to support a national minimum wage of a measly £3.40 an hour? That would give many people on benefits the two things that they need—a decent job at a decent wage.

Mr. Jack

That question confirms that the Opposition see little point in continuing with family credit as a benefit. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman's words show that, in their view, withering on the vine has become total decay. The contempt with which the Opposition deal with the issue of the minimum wage is summed up by a quotation from their spokesman on employment, the hon. Member for sedgefield (Mr. Blair): I have not accepted that the minimum wage will cost jobs … I have simply accepted that the econometric models indicate a potential jobs impact. Are the Opposition reducing people to econometric models? Is that the amount of care that they show? Our Child Support Bill will make access to family credit easier. Family credit is important, as the Opposition will know if they have eventually got round to reading examples 10 and 11 in the White Paper "Children Come First", which show precisely how child care costs can be met, to the advantage of the working parent.